National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard Comments

Monday, July 9, 2018 - 11:00am

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

1615 H STREET, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20062 (202) 463-5310

July 3, 2018

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

Mr. Arthur Neal
Deputy Administrator, Transportation and Marketing
Agricultural Marketing Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20250

RE: National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, 83 Fed. Reg. 19,860 (May 4,
2018); Docket No. AMS-TM-17-0050

Dear Mr. Neal:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce submits these comments in support of the Agricultural
Marketing Service’s (AMS or Service) proposal to establish the national mandatory bioengineered
food disclosure standard (NBFDS or Standard).1 Chamber members operate at all stages of the
nation’s food supply chain and many food products marketed today contain bioengineered (BE)
ingredients. It is imperative that AMS promulgates a standard that provides regulatory certainty for
the food supply chain, allows consumers to obtain more information if they want it, and protects the
biotechnology industry from harmful and stigmatizing mandatory warning labels.

I. Background

The Chamber has long supported a common sense BE food disclosure standard to create
regulatory certainty for all those operating along the nation’s food supply chain. On July 29, 2016,
President Obama signed Public Law 114-216 into law to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of
1946 (amended Statute), establish a national standard requiring the disclosure of certain BE foods,
and create uniformity to preempt a state-by-state patchwork of laws.2 The amended Statute tasks
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) with promulgating regulations to implement the
NBFDS, which it delegated to AMS, as well as conduct a study to identify potential technological
1 National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, 83 Fed. Reg. 19,860 (May 4, 2018) (to be codified at 7 C.F.R. 66). 2 Pub. L. 114-216, Subtitle E, 130 Stat. 834 (2016) (codified as amended 7 U.S.C. § 1621 et seq.).

Agricultural Marketing Service
July 3, 2018
Page 2 of 11

challenges associated with electronic and digital disclosure methods.3 AMS completed that study
and published the results on its website in September 2017.4

At the onset of the rulemaking process, AMS posted 30 questions on its website regarding
the proposed NBFDS to solicit public input on the Standard.5 AMS received over 112,000
responses from stakeholders representing a number of different industries, governments, and other
interest groups, and posted those responses on its website.6 A number of Chamber members
weighed in on the questions in written submissions.

On May 4, 2018, AMS proposed regulations to implement the NBFDS with the intent to
“provide for [the] disclosure of foods that are or may be bioengineered in the interest of
consumers”…and “minimize implementation and compliance costs for the food industry – costs
that could be passed on to consumers.”7 The proposal includes a number of notable requirements
spread across three major sections:

1. Applicability Provisions;
2. Disclosure Provisions; and
3. Administrative Provisions

The Chamber supports AMS’ efforts to promulgate regulations for the NBFDS that provide
uniform information to consumers about bioengineered food ingredients while reducing compliance
costs for the food industry. The Chamber, however, believes that the final NBFDS regulations
should be clear and straightforward, and incorporate flexibility where needed. The proposal takes
the definition of “bioengineering” straight from the amended Statute without any additional
explanation or guidance on the term’s meaning. To ensure that the final NBFDS rule provides for
regulatory certainty, AMS should make it clear in either the preamble or final rule itself that foods
developed using certain genetic engineering processes will be excluded from the regulatory definition
of “bioengineered food.”

With that said, the Chamber offers the following comments, as discussed in further detail
below, regarding certain provisions included in the proposed NBFDS regulations:

1. Applicability Provisions
a. Position 1, which would exclude highly refined ingredients and products from
the definition of “bioengineered food;”
3 Id. 4 Deloitte, Study of Electronic or Digital Link Disclosure: A Third-Party Evaluation of Challenges Impacting Access to
Bioengineered Food Disclosure, U.S.D.A., (July 2017), available at
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/USDADeloitteStudyofEl...
f. 5 Proposed Rule Questions Under Consideration, U.S.D.A. (June 28, 2017)¸available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-
regulations/gmo-questions. 6 Public Input on Bioengineered Food Disclosure Questions, U.S.D.A.¸available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-
regulations/public-input-bioengineered-food-disclosure-questions. 7 83 Fed. Reg. 19,861.

Agricultural Marketing Service
July 3, 2018
Page 3 of 11

b. The Chamber supports AMS’ 2-List approach for identifying products subject to
disclosure under the Standard;
c. The Chamber supports AMS’ proposed petition process for determining BE
factors and conditions;
d. The Chamber supports AMS’ approach to identifying an appropriate BE
substance disclosure threshold level; and
e. The Chamber supports the proposed NBFDS exemptions, but believes AMS
should expand them.

2. Disclosure Provisions
a. The Chamber supports the use of text messaging as an option for disclosure
under the Standard and the use of new technologies as they develop;
b. The Chamber supports the voluntary disclosure option for regulated entities.

3. Administrative Provisions
a. The Chamber supports the proposed compliance dates for the NBFDS; and
b. The Chamber encourages AMS to use more recognizable terminology when
labeling products.

II. Applicability Provisions

The Chamber finds that AMS has included transparent applicability provisions in the
proposed NBFDS regulations that will allow stakeholders to identify accurately and effectively those
foods that may be subject to disclosure under the Standard. AMS proposes to have the NBFDS
apply to foods covered under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA),8 as well as those
covered, with certain conditions, by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA),9 Poultry Products
Inspection Act (FPIA),10 and Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA).11

In regards to the proposed NBFDS provisions, the Chamber supports:
1. Excluding “highly refined ingredients/products” from the definition of
“bioengineered food;”
2. AMS’ 2-list approach to identifying what products may need to be disclosed under
the Standard, provided it includes a streamlined process allowing stakeholders to
determine early on whether a product is considered “BE;”
3. The proposed petition process for requesting a determination by AMS regarding
additional factors and conditions under which a food is considered a BE food;
4. AMS’ approach to identifying a threshold level for the amount of BE substance for
determining whether food must bear a BE disclosure; and
5. The four exemptions to the NBFDS provided for in the proposal.

8 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. 9 21 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. 10 21 U.S.C. § 451 et seq. 11 21 U.S.C. § 1031 et seq.

Agricultural Marketing Service
July 3, 2018
Page 4 of 11

To that end, the Chamber believes that AMS should consider expanding the exemptions to
the NBFDS regarding “very small food manufacturers” and “animals fed with bioengineered feed
and their products” to properly exempt other related stakeholders and products from certain
disclosure requirements under the Standard.

a. AMS Should Adopt Position 1 in Regards to the Definition of “Bioengineered
Food”

The Chamber appreciates the approach that AMS has taken to determine the definition of
“bioengineered food” and consider whether “highly refined ingredients/products” should be
included in that term.

The amended Statute provides the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (Secretary)
with the authority to define “bioengineered food,” consistent with other provisions in the amended
Statute, including “bioengineering.”12 The amended Statute defines “bioengineering,” with respect
to food, as a food “that contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro
recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques; and for which the modification could not
otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.”13 AMS proposes to
directly incorporate the definition of “bioengineering” into “bioengineered food.”

AMS has offered two positions in the proposal for defining “bioengineered food.” These
two positions take contrasting stances as to whether AMS should incorporate highly refined
ingredients/products into that definition. Position 1 takes the stance that “highly refined products
are not within the scope of ‘bioengineering’ because they do not ‘contain…genetic material that has
been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques,’ and
therefore do not require disclosure as ‘bioengineered’ under the NBFDS.”14 Position 2, on the other
hand, takes the stance that the scope of the definition of “bioengineering” “includes all foods
produced from bioengineering,” including highly refined products.15

The Chamber encourages AMS to adopt Position 1. For purposes of the Standard,
disclosure is limited to only those foods that meet the statutory definition of “bioengineering.”
Highly refined ingredients/products are typically subject to processes that remove genetic material
to the extent that it can no longer be detected through common testing methods. In maintaining
consistency with the statute, they no longer contain the genetic material necessary to fall within the
scope of “bioengineering.”

The Chamber finds that the proposal also offers regulated entities two process options, as
later discussed in further detail, to provide for the alternative disclosure of certain highly refined
ingredients in the future. First, AMS proposes to provide regulated entities with the option to later
petition the Service to include specific factors or conditions not otherwise provided for in the
definition of “bioengineered food.” Second, AMS proposes to provide stakeholders with the
12 83 Fed. Reg. 19,862. 13 7 U.S.C. § 1639(1); 83 Fed. Reg. 19,885. 14 83 Fed. Reg. 19,862. 15 83 Fed. Reg. 19,863.

Agricultural Marketing Service
July 3, 2018
Page 5 of 11

freedom to disclose voluntarily additional ingredients/products as long as they are truthful and
consistent with the NBFDS.

While it is imperative that the Service define “bioengineered food,” highly refined
ingredients and products should not be disclosed within the scope of the Standard. As such, the
Chamber encourages AMS to adopt Position 1.

b. The Chamber Supports AMS’ 2-List Approach for Identifying Products
Subject to Disclosure Under the Standard

The Chamber supports AMS’ decision to utilize a 2-list approach for identifying products
subject to disclosure under the NBFDS. AMS proposes to create two BE food “lists” to assist
consumers and regulated entities in determining whether a food item requires disclosure under the
Standard.16

The first proposed list applies to those BE foods that are commercially available and have
been adopted at a rate exceeding 85% in the United States.17 These foods include canola, field corn,
and soybean. The second proposed list includes foods that are “not highly adopted commercially
available” BE foods. These foods include certain apples, sweet corn, and papaya. Notably, in terms
of the proposal, “adoption” refers to U.S. plantings of those crops as “bioengineered cultivars.”18
The Chamber feels that this crop-based approach offers a flexible option for consumers and
regulated entities to identify those foods requiring disclosure under the NBFDS.

However, the Chamber feels that AMS should develop and include in the regulations an
explicit process whereby product developers can obtain a prior determination that a product is not
BE. This process should mirror, or be similar to, that process carried out by the Biotechnology
Regulatory Services of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) under the authority
of the Plant Protection Act (PPA).19 Inclusion of a regulatory determination process analogous to
the BRS PPA process would provide product developers with the opportunity to obtain certainty as
to whether a particular product would be subject to the requirements of the NBFDS.

Under this process, a producer may submit a letter to BRS containing certain specific
information regarding a product’s development and characteristics.20 BRS will then assess the
information provided in the letter and issue a written response to the producer.21 That response will
indicate whether a product is subject to regulation under the PPA.22 Recent examples of such
16 83 Fed. Reg. 19,864. 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 Am I Regulated Under 7 CFR part 340?, U.S.D.A., available at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/am-i-regulated. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Id.

Agricultural Marketing Service
July 3, 2018
Page 6 of 11

determinations include those for “Corn with Increased Yield” and “Soybean Engineered for
Transposon Mutagenesis.”23

With that said, including a streamlined petition process in the final NBFDS would ensure
that regulated entities are able to proactively engage AMS regarding the inclusion of their foods or
products within the scope of the Service’s two lists. The Chamber supports such a streamlined
approach, and encourages AMS to explore the possibility of including one in the final rule.

c. The Chamber Supports AMS’ Proposed Petition Process for Determining
Additional BE Factors and Conditions

The Chamber finds that AMS’ proposed petition process for determining additional factors
and conditions for consideration in the definition of “bioengineered food” to be a transparent and
flexible approach to identifying factors or conditions that may otherwise not initially be considered
part of BE food. The amended Statute provides that the Secretary establish a process via regulation
for requesting and granting a determination by the Secretary regarding other factors and conditions
under which a food is considered a BE food.24 The amended Statute is silent on the specific
process, and provides the Secretary with discretion as to setting up the process. The Chamber
supports this, considering the breadth of expertise and knowledge of the subject matter of those
promulgating the regulation at AMS.

Moreover, the Chamber believes that the Secretary should ultimately base his or her decision
to include additional factors and conditions within the scope of BE food on the weight of the
scientific evidence and best available scientific data. To that end, a petition process would provide
the public with a transparent rulemaking process and the opportunity to participate in potentially
limiting the scope of BE food and excluding certain products from disclosure. Additional
limitations to the scope of the NBFDS would undoubtedly affect many Chamber members.

d. The Chamber Supports AMS’ Approach to Identifying an Appropriate BE
Substance Disclosure Threshold Level

The Chamber encourages AMS to adopt Alternative 1-A when determining an appropriate
BE substance disclosure threshold, and supports the Service’s decision to provide three alternative
options for stakeholders to comment on. The amended Statute requires that the Secretary
“determine the amounts of a bioengineered substance that may be present in food, as appropriate
for the food to be a bioengineered food.”25 Based on responses from the initial 30 questions
provided by the Service in last year’s stakeholder survey, AMS has proposed three alternative
thresholds in an effort to minimize costs for regulated entities after a final rule goes into effect:

23 Regulated Article Letters of Inquiry, U.S.D.A. (June 4, 2018), available at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/am-i-
regulated/regulated_article_letters_of_inquiry/regulated_article_letters_of_inquiry. 24 7 U.S.C. § 1639b(b)(2)(c); 83 Fed. Reg. 19,865. 25 7 U.S.C. § 1639b(b)(2)(b); 83 Fed. Reg. 19,867.

Agricultural Marketing Service
July 3, 2018
Page 7 of 11

1. Alternative 1-A: an ingredient contains a BE substance that is inadvertent or
technically unavoidable, and accounts for no more than five percent (5%) of the
specific ingredient by weight, would not be subject to disclosure as a result of that
one ingredient;

2. Alternative 1-B: an ingredient contains a BE substance that is inadvertent or
technically unavoidable, and accounts for no more than nine-tenths percent (0.9%)
of the specific ingredient by weight, would not be subject to disclosure as a result
of that one ingredient; and

3. Alternative 1-C: allow regulated entities to use a small amount of BE ingredients up
to a certain threshold, such as 5% of the total weight of the product, before being
required to label a product with a BE disclosure.26

The Chamber believes Alternative 1-A offers the best disclosure threshold for regulated
entities, and notes that it is important for the Service to recognize that the Standard is a marketing
standard and not one based on health and safety.

Alternative 1-A provides regulated entities with the most flexibility and certainty when
engaged in the food supply chain. For example, food manufacturers typically use the same
manufacturing processes on both BE and non-BE crops. During those processes, trace or
insignificant amounts of BE substances may transfer from BE crops to non-BE crops. Accordingly,
the Senate Report for the amended Statute states that, “there is no difference in safety between a
bioengineered food and its non-bioengineered counterpart.”27

Moreover, Congress directed USDA to “minimize the impacts on all aspects of the domestic
and international value chain” when determining the amounts of a BE substance that may be
present in food.28 A number of countries, including Canada, Indonesia, and Japan, incorporate a 5%
threshold on either a mandatory or a voluntary basis.29 It would be prudent to mirror that level to
support regulatory certainty for the international food supply chain.

Lastly, Alternative 1-A would provide for consistency with USDA’s National Organic
Program (NOP) requirements. The amended Statute requires that USDA consider establishing
consistency between the NOP requirements and the NBFDS requirements.30 The amended Statute
also specifies that foods certified under the NOP may be represented as non-BE foods.31 To that
end, when labeling products as “organic” under the NOP approach, that product must contain a
minimum of 95% organic ingredients (excluding salt and water), and up to 5% of the ingredients
may be nonorganic agricultural products that are not commercially available as organic and/or
26 83 Fed. Reg. 19,868-9. 27 Sen. Rep. No. 114–403, at 2 (Dec. 9, 2016). 28 Id. at 4. 29 See Stakeholder Input on Questions Regarding the Establishment of a National Bioengineered Food Disclosure
Standard, Nat’l Corn Growers Ass’n (Aug. 25, 2017) (Footnotes 5 and 6), available at
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NationalCornGrowersAs.... 30 7 U.S.C. § 1639b(f); 83 Fed. Reg. 19,867. 31 Id.

Agricultural Marketing Service
July 3, 2018
Page 8 of 11

nonagricultural products that are on the National list.32 The Chamber finds that Alternative 1-A
provides for the most consistency with the NOP program.

Given the uncertainty of when and where these trace amounts may shift, and in an effort to
adhere to Congressional intent and mirror USDA’s NOP approach, the Chamber feels that
Alternative 1-A provides for the most certain and cost-effective threshold in ensuring a safe,
affordable, and sustainable food supply.

e. The Chamber Supports the Proposed NBFDS Exemptions, but Believes AMS
Should Expand Them

The Chamber supports the exemptions to the NBFDS provided in the proposal. AMS
should, as it has proposed, expressly exempt “food serviced in a restaurant or similar retail
establishment” and “very small food manufacturers” from the scope of the NBFDS.33 AMS also
should exempt “animals fed with bioengineered feed and their products” and “food certified under
the National Organic Program.”34

The Chamber supports the exemption for “animals fed with bioengineered feed and their
products,” and urges AMS to extend this sensible exemption to include BE-derived substrates as
well as processing agents. These substrates typically become feed stock for plants or microbes and
would no longer qualify as “bioengineered” under the amended Statute.” As such, it is necessary
that this exemption include all foods or ingredients used in the production of BE feed, not just the
final product.

III. Disclosure Provisions

The Chamber generally supports the disclosure provisions include in the proposed NBFDS
regulations. AMS is proposing that food manufacturers, food importers, and, in certain situations,
food retailers alike disclose the presence of BE food or BE food ingredients in the food that they
process and/or sell via on-package text, on-package symbol, electronic or digital link, or through an
additional text message option.

The Chamber supports the use of a text messaging option as a means of allowing consumers
to identify if a product is a BE food or contains BE food ingredients. The Chamber also
recommends that, as technologies continue to evolve, the AMS consider providing additional
disclosure options that may be appropriate for consumers. For example, artificial intelligence
technologies may provide additional opportunities for innovation with respect to food disclosure,
and AMS should ensure that the final rule enables the Service to accommodate advances in these
new and evolving technologies moving forward.

Moreover, the Chamber also supports the option for the voluntary disclosure of the
presence of BE food or food ingredients for food that may not otherwise be subject to disclosure
32 7 C.F.R. § 205.301. 33 83 Fed. Reg. 19,867. 34 Id. at 19,869.

Agricultural Marketing Service
July 3, 2018
Page 9 of 11

under the Standard.

a. The Chamber Supports the Use of Text Messaging as an Option for
Disclosure under the Standard

The Chamber supports the addition of a text messaging disclosure option for consumers
under the NBFDS. The amended Statute provides three alternative options for disclosure under the
NBFDS – text, a symbol, or an electronic or digital link – for those BE foods that have successfully
completed the pre-market Federal regulatory review process.35 As previously noted, the amended
Statute tasks the Secretary, through AMS, to conduct a study to identify potential technological
challenges associated with electronic and digital disclosure methods.36

AMS completed that study and posted the results on its website in September 2017. The
study focused on five factors: 1) the availability of wireless internet or cellular networks; 2) the
availability of landline telephones in stores; 3) challenges facing small and rural retailers; 4) the
efforts that retailers and other entities have taken to address potential technology and infrastructure
challenges; and 5) the costs and benefits of installing in retail stores electronic or digital link
scanners, or other evolving technology that provide bioengineering disclosure information.37

The study found a number of different things. Notably, it found that consumers might
recognize digital links, but lack familiarity with scanning.38 Additionally, the study found that 85% of
consumers experienced technical challenges using certain mobile software applications for scanning
digital links.39 These factors, combined with the fact that some retailers, including those that are
small or in rural areas, lack access to WIFI or cellular data networks, indicates that an
electronic/digital method may not be the best option for some consumers.40

As a result, AMS has included a text messaging disclosure option in the NBFDS proposal.
The Chamber feels that this option for disclosure is justified given that not all consumers have
access to broadband internet or a smart phone. Additionally, the Chamber feels that this
demonstrates AMS’ willingness to go beyond the amended Statute’s text when promulgating
regulations for the NBFDS.

b. The Chamber Supports the Voluntary Disclosure Option for Regulated
Entities

The Chamber supports AMS’ decision to provide regulated entities with the option to
voluntarily disclose foods and ingredients that may not otherwise be subject to disclosure under the
NBFDS. According to the proposal, AMS recognizes that “some entities responsible for disclosure
may want to provide a BE disclosure even though they are exempted.”41 For example, very small
35 Id. at 19,875-6. 36 Id. at 19,875. 37 See supra note 5. 38 Id. 39 Id. 40 Id. 41 83 Fed. Reg. 19,877.

Agricultural Marketing Service
July 3, 2018
Page 10 of 11

food manufacturers that may want to provide information to their consumers regardless of the
exemptions. The Chamber feels that voluntary disclosure may also provide regulated entities with
the option to disclose BE information regarding ingredients, such as highly refined sugars or oils,
which may otherwise not require disclosure under the Standard.

IV. Administrative Provisions

The Chamber believes that AMS has included certain provisions in the proposed NBFDS
regulations that will provide for an efficient administration of the Standard. Indeed, the Chamber
supports the proposed compliance dates, which indicate that AMS seeks regulatory coordination
amongst Agencies and provide enough time for affected stakeholders to comply with the new
regulations. The Chamber questions, however, AMS’ decision to shift away from use of the term
“GMO” (genetically modified organisms) in favor of the term “BE.”

a. The Chamber Supports the Proposed Compliance Dates for the NBFDS

The Chamber supports AMS’ proposal to align compliance dates for the NBFDS with the
Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) compliance dates for its “Nutrition Facts and Supplemental
Facts” label and “Serving Size” final rules.42 FDA recently extending these compliance dates from
July 26, 2018 to January 1, 2020 and January 1, 2021 for food manufacturers and small food
manufacturers, respectively.43 AMS proposes to use those same compliance dates for the NBFDS.

The Chamber believes that this course of action is appropriate and agrees with AMS in that
the proposed compliance dates “provide a balance between the time industry will need to come into
compliance with the new labeling requirements and the need for consumers to have the information
in a timely manner.”44 Moreover, the Chamber believes that this encourages interagency
coordination and cooperation in an effort to develop a proper product-labeling regime.

b. The Chamber Encourages AMS to Use Recognizable Terminology on
Product Labels

The Chamber believes that terms used to disclose BE ingredients or foods should be simple,
scientifically accurate, non-disparaging, and educational. AMS may want to consider using more
recognizable terminology when disclosing BE ingredients on product labels. In issuing the NBFDS
proposal, AMS has proposed using the term “BE” on product labels.

Nevertheless, the Chamber believes AMS should consider using a term more recognizable
than “BE” on product labels. While the amended Statute and proposal use the terms
“bioengineering” and “bioengineered food,” AMS is not required to use those terms, or “BE” on
product labels. Rather, it leaves the disclosure standard up to the discretion of the Secretary, in that
42 Id. at 19,879. 43 Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels and Serving Sizes of Foods That Can
Reasonably Be Consumed at One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing
Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments;
Extension of Compliance Dates, 83 Fed. Reg. 19,619 (May 4, 2018). 44 83 Fed. Reg. 19,879.

Agricultural Marketing Service
July 3, 2018
Page 11 of 11

a disclosure must be made in accordance with the NBFDS regulations promulgated by the
Secretary.45 Moreover, according to Congress, the only text required to accompany an electronic or
digital link disclosure option is ‘‘scan here for more food information.”46 This statement gives no
reference that AMS must use “BE” on product labels.

For example, according to a 2016 study conducted by one Chamber member, consumers
want to see the word “GMOs” on labels, as technical terms are confusing, feel less transparent, and
make food feel scientific. Additionally, the study found that consumers support the inclusion of
phrases such as “The FDA considers GMO crops to be safe,” as they are direct and to the point,
and use language that consumers understand.

The use of the term “GMO” is consistent with existing FDA guidance for the labeling of
foods derived from BE plants. Its use would provide for a coordinated degree of certainty among
Federal agencies,47 and AMS has already demonstrated a willingness to coordinate with FDA on
compliance dates in the proposal. While the term “GMO” may not be as scientifically accurate as
“BE” or “bioengineered,” consumers are much more likely to recognize such a term when shopping
for products and adding value to the food supply chain.

As such, the Chamber encourages AMS to consider these results and choose labeling
language that best balances the need for scientific accuracy and consumer awareness.

V. Conclusion

The Chamber appreciates AMS’ consideration of these comments and urges the Service to
implement a commonsense national mandatory bioengineered food disclosure standard that ensures
regulatory certainty for all those operating along the nation’s food supply chain. If you have
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (202) 463-5558 or at
kharbert@uschamber.com.

Sincerely,

Karen A. Harbert
45 7 U.S.C. § 1639b(b)(1). 46 Sen. Rep. No. 114–403, at 2. 47 See Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not Been Derived From Genetically Engineered
Plants; Guidance for Industry; Availability, 80 Fed. Reg. 73,194 (Nov. 24, 2015), available at
https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryI....